Peirce --- Frank C. Wimberly, PhD 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, 8:59 AM Prof David West <profw...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Hi Glen, > > Your analysis is excellent but the post is missing what is actually an > important bit of information re: my quest that Nick would likely recall but > is not in the post. I am interested in whether or not various approaches to > epistemology are applicable to "knowledge" obtained from mystical and/or > hallucinogenic experiences. > > This makes my "feint" a little less of one and my conclusion that Pierce > probably offers little of assistance less of a provocation. > > I used to think that Pierce had a bit of the mystic in his work, but > increasingly doubt it. > > davew > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, at 4:21 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > > If I read this post with a little empathy, it seems very provocative, > > indeed. Good job. > > > > You start by striking a posture of checking your "in your own words" > > with Nick's. But you end with the suggestion that Pierce's work has > > nothing to offer in understanding what knowledge is, etc. And you > > obviously understand that Nick believes Pierce DOES offer at least some > > assistance in that effort. > > > > If you were in a physical fight, this would be a *feint*, where you > > pretend to check your own words against Nick with your right hand. But > > then quickly punch him in the kidney with your left. > > > > An authentic attempt to steel-man why Nick might believe Pierce can > > contribute to your effort might consist of identifying, for example, > > how establishing the truth of one's (or many's) conception of an object > > (which you admit Pierce helps with) might *indirectly* contribute to > > understanding the existence of those target objects. Personally, it's > > not clear to me that Pierce's words, themselves, help much in that > > regard. But his intellectual descendants' words *do* help, John Woods > > for me. But maybe others for you. > > > > On 2/20/20 12:54 AM, Prof David West wrote: > > > Thanks for the response. I think you answered my questions but, > because your answers seem to confirm a conclusion I came to prior to the > answers, I need to check if I have it correct. > > > > > > The key issue, for me is in question 4 and your answer ... > > > > > >> 4- If we had a "consensus" enumeration of plausible effects does our > "conception of the object" have any relation to the ontology of the object? > > >> > > >> */[NST===>] I don’t think so. Increasing the number of people who > think that “unicorn” means “a horse with a narwhale horn on his forehead” > has no implications for the existence or non existence of unicorns./* > > >> > > > > > > ... which is the reason that I asked the followup question about > naturalized epistemology (NE). > > > > > > NE comes from W.V.O. Quine and advocates replacing traditional > approaches for understanding knowledge with empirically grounded approaches > ala the natural sciences — how knowledge actually forms and is used in the > World. A subset would be about what knowledge must an agent form and hold > in order to survive; which sounds related to evolutionary epistemology. > > > > > > The epistemology of Pierce and traditional philosophers of knowledge > is deemed, like mathematics, to be divorced from common sense > understandings of meaning and truth. I.e. Pierce's system (logic?) can tell > us whether or not we have a truthful conception of an object, but nothing > further. It cannot tell us that Donald "is," let alone that he is an "x." > > > > > > Alas, I seems I must abandon the hope that Pierce can offer assistance > in my quest to understand what knowledge is, means for obtaining it, and > how we know if we have it. > > > > -- > > ☣ uǝlƃ > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives back to 2003: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
